Special tests for assessing meniscal tears within the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Meniscus Injuries in Soccer

Soccer is considered the most popular sport in the world. The game involves frequent agile maneuvers, such as rapid accelerations/decelerations and pivoting, and carries an inherent risk of high-speed collisions, which can lead to lower extremity injury. Knee and meniscus injuries can cause significant pain and disability, precluding participation in the sport. Understanding the diagnosis and management of meniscal injuries in soccer players is essential to the care of these athletes. This paper reviews meniscal anatomy, biomechanics, and mechanisms of injury; discusses the work-up, diagnosis, and management of meniscus injuries; and reports on rehabilitation, return to sport, and outcomes after meniscal injuries in soccer players.

Evaluation and Treatment of Knee Pain: A Review

Importance

Approximately 5% of all primary care visits in adults are related to knee pain. Osteoarthritis (OA), patellofemoral pain, and meniscal tears are among the most common causes of knee pain.

Observations

Knee OA, affecting an estimated 654 million people worldwide, is the most likely diagnosis of knee pain in patients aged 45 years or older who present with activity-related knee joint pain with no or less than 30 minutes of morning stiffness (95% sensitivity; 69% specificity). Patellofemoral pain typically affects people younger than 40 years who are physically active and has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 25%. The presence of anterior knee pain during a squat is approximately 91% sensitive and 50% specific for patellofemoral pain. Meniscal tears affect an estimated 12% of the adult population and can occur following acute trauma (eg, twisting injury) in people younger than 40 years. Alternatively, a meniscal tear may be a degenerative condition present in patients with knee OA who are aged 40 years or older. The McMurray test, consisting of concurrent knee rotation (internal or external to test lateral or medial meniscus, respectively) and extension (61% sensitivity; 84% specificity), and joint line tenderness (83% sensitivity; 83% specificity) assist diagnosis of meniscal tears. Radiographic imaging of all patients with possible knee OA is not recommended. First-line management of OA comprises exercise therapy, weight loss (if overweight), education, and self-management programs to empower patients to better manage their condition. Surgical referral for knee joint replacement can be considered for patients with end-stage OA (ie, no or minimal joint space with inability to cope with pain) after using all appropriate conservative options. For patellofemoral pain, hip and knee strengthening exercises in combination with foot orthoses or patellar taping are recommended, with no indication for surgery. Conservative management (exercise therapy for 4-6 weeks) is also appropriate for most meniscal tears. For severe traumatic (eg, bucket-handle) tears, consisting of displaced meniscal tissue, surgery is likely required. For degenerative meniscal tears, exercise therapy is first-line treatment; surgery is not indicated even in the presence of mechanical symptoms (eg, locking, catching).

Conclusions and Relevance

Knee OA, patellofemoral pain, and meniscal tears are common causes of knee pain, can be diagnosed clinically, and can be associated with significant disability. First-line treatment for each condition consists of conservative management, with a focus on exercise, education, and self-management.

Early triage of a patient with metastatic melanoma presenting as mechanical knee pain - a case report

Physical therapists (PTs) working in primary care settings commonly encounter mechanical causes of knee pain. Non-mechanical causes of knee pain, such as bone tumors, are rare, and therefore, PTs often have a low index of suspicion regarding sinister pathology. The purpose of this case report is to describe the physical therapist's clinical reasoning process for a 33-year-old female presenting with medial knee pain and a subsequent history of metastatic melanoma. Initially, subjective and objective testing pointed to a mechanical internal derangement of the knee. However, symptom progression and poor treatment responses between physical therapy visits 2 and 3 raised suspicions as to the cause of the knee pain. This prompted an orthopedic referral and medical imaging, revealing a large bone tumor invading the medial femoral condyle, which was further characterized as metastatic melanoma by a specialty oncology team. Further imaging revealed several metastatic subcutaneous, intramuscular and cerebral lesions. This case highlights the importance of the ongoing medical screening process, including the monitoring of symptoms and treatment responses.

Post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis; the role of inflammation and hemarthrosis on disease progression

Knee injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament ruptures and meniscal injury are common and are most frequently sustained by young and active individuals. Knee injuries will lead to post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) in 25–50% of patients. Mechanical processes where historically believed to cause cartilage breakdown in PTOA patients. But there is increasing evidence suggesting a key role for inflammation in PTOA development. Inflammation in PTOA might be aggravated by hemarthrosis which frequently occurs in injured knees. Whereas mechanical symptoms (joint instability and locking of the knee) can be successfully treated by surgery, there still is an unmet need for anti-inflammatory therapies that prevent PTOA progression. In order to develop anti-inflammatory therapies for PTOA, more knowledge about the exact pathophysiological mechanisms and exact course of post-traumatic inflammation is needed to determine possible targets and timing of future therapies.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: did it ever work?

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is one the most common orthopedic surgical procedures. The most common indication for APM is a degenerative meniscal tear (DMT). High-quality evidence suggests that APM does not provide meaningful benefits in patients with DMTs and may even be harmful in the longer term. This narrative review focuses on a fundamental question: considering the history and large number of these surgeries, has APM ever actually worked in patients with DMT? A truly effective treatment needs a valid disease model that would biologically and plausibly explain the perceived treatment benefits. In the case of DMT, effectiveness requires a credible framework for the pain-generating process, which should be influenced by APM. Basic research, pathoanatomy, and clinical evidence gives no support to these frameworks. Moreover, treatment of DMT with an APM does not align with the traditional practice of medicine since DMT is not a reliable diagnosis for knee pain and no evidence-based indication exists that would influence patient prognosis from APM. A plausible and robust explanation supported by both basic research and clinical evidence is that DMTs are part of an osteoarthritic disease process and do not contribute to the symptoms independently or in isolation and that symptoms are not treatable with APM. This is further supported by the fact that APM as an intervention is paradoxical because the extent of procedure and severity of disease are both inversely associated with outcome. We argue that arthroscopic treatment of DMT is largely based on a logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Dutch Guideline on Knee Arthroscopy Part 1, the meniscus: a multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association

Background and purpose - A guideline committee of medical specialists and a physiotherapist was formed on the initiative of the Dutch Orthopedic Association (NOV) to update the guideline Arthroscopy of the Knee: Indications and Treatment 2010. This next guideline was developed between June 2017 and December 2019. In this Part 1 we focus on the meniscus, in Part 2 on all other aspects of knee arthroscopy.Methods - The guideline was developed in accordance with the criteria of the AGREE instrument (AGREE II: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) with support of a professional methodologist from the Dutch Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists. The scientific literature was searched and systematically analyzed. Conclusions and recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Recommendations were developed considering the balance of benefits and harms, the type and quality of evidence, the values and preferences of the people involved, and the costs.

An Up-to-Date Review of the Meniscus Literature: A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Background:

A large number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the meniscus have been published.

Purpose:

To provide a qualitative summary of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the meniscus.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic search of all meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding the meniscus and published between July 2009 and July 2019 was performed with PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. Published abstracts, narrative reviews, articles not written in English, commentaries, study protocols, and topics that were not focused on the meniscus were excluded. The most pertinent results were extracted and summarized from each study.

Results:

A total of 332 articles were found, of which 142 were included. Included articles were summarized and divided into 16 topics: epidemiology, diagnosis, histology, biomechanics, comorbid pathology, animal models, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), meniscal repair, meniscal root repairs, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT), meniscal implants and scaffolds, mesenchymal stem cells and growth factors, postoperative rehabilitation, postoperative imaging assessment, patient-reported outcome measures, and cost-effectiveness. The majority of articles focused on APM (20%), MAT (18%), and meniscal repair (17%).

Conclusion:

This summary of systematic reviews and meta-analyses delivers surgeons a single source of the current evidence regarding the meniscus.

Meniscal Tears: Current Understanding, Diagnosis, and Management

From once being labelled as a functionless remain of leg muscle, extensive scientific investigations in recent decades have described the meniscus as one of the most crucial structures of the knee. The incidence of meniscal injuries is on the rise and can be attributed to the increased participation of youth in sporting activities. MRI continues to be the imaging modality of choice, and surgical management is the mainstay of treatment for meniscal tears. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is currently the most performed orthopedic procedure around the globe. However, recent studies have conclusively shown that outcomes after an APM are no better than the outcomes after a sham/placebo surgery. Meniscal repair is now being touted as a viable and effective alternative. Meniscal repair aims to achieve meniscal healing while completely avoiding the adverse effects of partial meniscectomy. Meniscal repairs have grown in popularity over the past three decades and have proved to be a much more efficient alternative to partial meniscectomy. It is now increasingly recommended to attempt meniscal repair in all repairable tears, especially in young and physically active patients. Partial Meniscal implants have also shown excellent outcomes in long-term studies, but its efficacy in acute settings still requires further research. Research performed on various techniques of meniscal regeneration looks promising, and regenerative medicine appears to be the way forward. This review aims to critically discuss the current understanding of the meniscus, its role in biomechanics of the knee joint, and the current methods used to diagnose and manage meniscal tears.

Descriptive study of knee lesions using magnetic resonance imaging and correlation between medical imaging diagnosis and suspected clinical diagnosis

Objective:

This study aimed to assess the meniscus and cruciate ligament lesions of the knee using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to investigate the correlation between clinical and MRI diagnoses.

Patients and Methods:

Herein, we reviewed the electronic medical records of 240 patients who underwent knee MRI. The images were evaluated and then the clinical and MRI diagnoses were compared.

Results:

Of the 240 patients, 66% were male and the mean age was 40.6 ± 15.5 years (range, 2-79 years). Knee pain alone was the most common presenting symptom (50.64%) followed by pain after trauma (47.92%). Majority of the knee lesions were medial meniscus (MM) lesions (63%) followed by osteoarthritis (48%) and ACL lesions (35%). The majority of the MM and ACL lesions were tears (54.6% and 69.41%, respectively) followed by degeneration (33.55% and 17.65%, respectively). However, the MM lesions were predominantly observed in the posterior horn (Odds ratio [OR], 152; 95% confidence interval (CI), 21.550–1072.113; P < 0.001). The ACL lesions were significantly more common in men than in women (OR, 0.355; 95% CI, 0.191-0.661; P = 0.001), and altered signal intensity on T2- and proton density–weighted images was the most common sign (P < 0.001). A strong compatibility was observed between the clinical and MRI diagnoses (Kappa = 0.141; P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

MM and ACL lesions are the most common injuries of the knee, which can be diagnosed by physical examination in most cases. Further confirmation by MRI should be reserved for doubtful cases only.

Associations of Joint Line Tenderness and Patellofemoral Grind With Long-Term Knee Joint Outcomes: Data From the Osteoarthritis Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether joint line tenderness and patellofemoral grind from physical examination were associated with cartilage volume loss, worsening of radiographic osteoarthritis, and the risk of total knee replacement.

METHODS

This study examined 4,353 Osteoarthritis Initiative participants. For each measurement of joint line tenderness and patellofemoral grind, the patterns were defined as no (none at baseline and at 1 year), fluctuating (present at either time point), and persistent (present at both time points). Cartilage volume loss and worsening of radiographic osteoarthritis over 4 years were assessed using magnetic resonance imaging and radiographs, and total knee replacement over 6 years was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 35.0% of participants had joint line tenderness, and 15.8% had patellofemoral grind. Baseline patellofemoral grind, but not joint line tenderness, was associated with increased cartilage volume loss (1.08% per year versus 0.96% per year; P = 0.02) and an increased risk of total knee replacement (odds ratio [OR] 1.55 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.11-2.17]; P = 0.01). While the patterns of joint line tenderness were not significantly associated with joint outcomes, participants with persistent patellofemoral grind had an increased rate of cartilage volume loss (1.30% per year versus 0.90% per year; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of total knee replacement (OR 2.10 [95% CI 1.30-3.38]; P = 0.002) compared with those participants without patellofemoral grind.

CONCLUSION

Patellofemoral grind, but not joint line tenderness, may represent a clinical marker associated with accelerated cartilage volume loss over 4 years and an increased risk of total knee replacement over 6 years. This simple clinical examination may provide clinicians with an inexpensive way to identify those at higher risk of disease progression who should be targeted for surveillance and management.

Prospective Evaluation of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State to Identify Clinically Successful Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The length of most patient-reported outcome measures creates significant response burden, which hampers follow-up rates. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) is a single-item, patient-reported outcome measure that asks patients to consider all aspects of life to determine whether the state of their joint is satisfactory; this measure may be viable for tracking outcomes on a large scale.

HYPOTHESIS

The PASS question would identify clinically successful anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) at 1-year follow-up with high sensitivity and moderate specificity. We defined "clinically successful" ACLR as changes in preoperative to postoperative scores on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain subscale and the KOOS knee-related quality of life subscale in excess of minimal clinically important difference or final KOOS pain or knee-related quality of life subscale scores in excess of previously defined PASS thresholds.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in a prospective longitudinal cohort completed patient-reported outcome measures immediately before primary ACLR. At 1-year follow-up, patients completed the same patient-reported outcome measures and answered the PASS question: "Taking into account all the activity you have during your daily life, your level of pain, and also your activity limitations and participation restrictions, do you consider the current state of your knee satisfactory?"

RESULTS

A total of 555 patients enrolled in our cohort; 464 were eligible for this study. Of these, 300 patients (64.7%) completed 1-year follow-up, of whom 83.3% reported satisfaction with their knee after surgery. The PASS question demonstrated high sensitivity to identify clinically successful ACLR (92.6%; 95% CI, 88.4%-95.6%). The specificity of the question was 47.1% (95% CI, 35.1%-59.5%). The overall agreement between the PASS and our KOOS-based criteria for clinically successful intervention was 81.9%, and the kappa value indicated moderate agreement between the two methods (κ = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

The PASS question identifies individuals who have experienced clinically successful ACLR with high sensitivity. The limitation of the PASS is its low specificity, which we calculated to be 47.1%. Answering "no" to the PASS question meant that a patient neither improved after surgery nor achieved an acceptable final state of knee health. The brevity, interpretability, and correlation of the PASS question with significant improvements on various KOOS subscales make it a viable option in tracking ACLR outcomes on a national or global scale.

Higher order thinking about differential diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis is a systematic process used to identify the proper diagnosis from a set of possible competing diagnoses.

METHODS

The goal of this masterclass is to discuss the higher order thinking components of differential diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

For healthcare providers, diagnosis is one of many necessary components during the clinical decision making process and it is hallmarked by differentiation of competing structures for a definitive understanding of the underlying condition. The diagnostic process involves identifying or determining the etiology of a disease or condition through evaluation of patient history, physical examination, and review of laboratory data or diagnostic imaging; and the subsequent descriptive title of that finding. Whereas differential diagnosis is a varied skill set among all healthcare providers, the concept of a diagnosis is equally germane, regardless of one's background. In theory, a diagnosis improves the use of classification tools, improves clarity and communication, provides a trajectory of treatment, improves understanding of a person's prognosis, and in some cases, may be useful for preventative treatments. To achieve these improvements, one must have an understanding of relation of the clinical utility of tests and measures with diagnosis, and how to best implement these findings in clinical practice. This requires a deeper understanding (higher order thinking) of the role of diagnosis in the management of patients.

Degenerative meniscal tears of the knee: evaluation and management

Meniscal injuries are among the most common orthopaedic injuries seen in knee clinics. Meniscal tears can occur as a result of acute injuries or chronic degeneration. However, the exact incidence of meniscal tears is difficult to ascertain because of the high number of asymptomatic tears and the high rate of degenerative tears in patients with advanced degenerative joint disease. The management of patients with knee pain is non-operative both for degenerative meniscal tears and degenerative joint disease in its initial stages. Magnetic resonance imaging has little added value in the management of middle-aged and elderly patients with degenerative disease. Failure to respond to non-operative measures warrants orthopaedic assessment with radiographic studies and counselling on managing degenerative joint disease both non-operatively and operatively. This article focuses on assessment and management of degenerative meniscal tears.

Knee Range of Motion as a Discriminatory Tool Indicating Potential Meniscal Tears

Background

Primary care physicians often encounter patients with knee pain and are faced with the dilemma of whether to refer patients to a specialist. Meniscal tears are the most common intraarticular knee injury but are challenging to accurately diagnose because of a lack of quantitative, accurate, and easy-to-administer tests. We conducted a retrospective medical record review to evaluate whether measurement of knee range of motion (ROM) via goniometry could discriminate between healthy and meniscus-altered knees.

Methods

A total of 110 adult patients met the inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years; no history of contralateral knee pain, injury, or surgery; ROM data collected using a goniometer on both knees at the time of diagnosis; and a confirmed diagnosis of meniscus tear via magnetic resonance imaging. The following variables were obtained from medical records: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ROM for both knees, surgical treatment, insurance coverage, Ahlbäck x-ray grades, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

Results

The majority of patients (96.4%) exhibited a ≥10° difference in flexion between asymptomatic and symptomatic knees. No significant relationships were observed between age, BMI, and the decision to undergo surgery and the difference in flexion or extension ROM. Both the WOMAC and the OKS were significantly correlated with the degree of loss of flexion ROM.

Conclusion

The results suggest that knee flexion ROM may be a valuable tool for determining which patients presenting with new-onset ipsilateral knee pain should be referred to a specialist. Further investigation to determine the reliability and accuracy of knee ROM as a screening measure is warranted.

Patient-reported symptoms and changes up to 1 year after meniscal surgery

Background and purpose - Detailed information on the symptoms and limitations that patients with meniscal tears experience is lacking. This study was undertaken to map the most prevalent self-reported symptoms and functional limitations among patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscal surgery and investigate which symptoms and limitations had improved most at 1 year after surgery. Patients and methods - Patients aged 18-76 years from the Knee Arthroscopy Cohort Southern Denmark (KACS) undergoing arthroscopic meniscal surgery were included in this analysis of individual subscale items from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and 1 question on knee stability. Severity of each item was scored as none, mild, moderate, severe, or extreme. Improvements were evaluated using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test and effect size (ES). Results - The most common symptoms were knee grinding and clicking, knee pain in general, pain when twisting and bending the knee and climbing stairs (88-98%), while the most common functional limitations were difficulty bending to the floor, squatting, twisting, kneeling, and knee awareness (97-99%). Knee pain in general and knee awareness improved most 1 year after meniscal surgery (ES -0.47 and -0.45; p < 0.001), while knee instability and general knee difficulties improved least (ES 0.10 and -0.08; p < 0.006). Interpretation - Adults undergoing surgery for a meniscal tear commonly report clinical symptoms and functional limitations related to their daily activities. Moderate improvements were observed in some symptoms and functional limitations and small to no improvement in others at 1 year after surgery. These findings can assist the clinical discussion of symptoms, treatments, and patients' expectations.

Modern treatment of meniscal tears

The complex ultrastructure of the meniscus determines its vital functions for the knee, the lower extremity, and the body.

The most recent concise, reliable, and valid classification system for meniscal tears is the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine (ISAKOS) Classification, which takes into account the subsequent parameters: tear depth, tear pattern, tear length, tear location/rim width, radial location, location according to the popliteal hiatus, and quality of the meniscal tissue.

It is the orthopaedic surgeon’s responsibility to combine clinical information, radiological images, and clinical experience in an effort to individualize management of meniscal tears, taking into account factors related to the patient and lesion.

Surgeons should strive not to operate in most cases, but to protect, repair or reconstruct, in order to prevent early development of osteoarthritis by restoring the native structure, function, and biomechanics of the meniscus.

Currently, there are three main methods of modern surgical management of meniscus tears: arthroscopic partial meniscectomy; meniscal repair with or without augmentation techniques; and meniscal reconstruction. Meniscus surgery has come a long way from the old slogan, “If it is torn, take it out!” to the currently accepted slogan, “Save the meniscus!” which has guided evolving modern treatment methods for meniscal tears. This last slogan will probably constitute the basis for newer alternative biological treatment methods in the future.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170067.

Risk factors, diagnosis and non-surgical treatment for meniscal tears: evidence and recommendations: a statement paper commissioned by the Danish Society of Sports Physical Therapy (DSSF)

This statement aimed at summarising and appraising the available evidence for risk factors, diagnostic tools and non-surgical treatments for patients with meniscal tears. We systematically searched electronic databases using a pragmatic search strategy approach. Included studies were synthesised quantitatively or qualitatively, as appropriate. Strength of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation framework. Low-quality evidence suggested that overweight (degenerative tears, k=3), male sex (k=4), contact and pivoting sports (k=2), and frequent occupational kneeling/squatting (k=3) were risk factors for meniscal tears. There was low to moderate quality evidence for low to high positive and negative predictive values, depending on the underlying prevalence of meniscal tears for four common diagnostic tests (k=15, n=2474). Seven trials investigated exercise versus surgery (k=2) or the effect of surgery in addition to exercise (k=5) for degenerative meniscal tears. There was moderate level of evidence for exercise improving self-reported pain (Effect Size (ES)-0.51, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.13) and function (ES -0.06, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.11) to the same extent as surgery, and improving muscle strength to a greater extent than surgery (ES -0.45, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.29). High-quality evidence showed no clinically relevant effect of surgery in addition to exercise on pain (ES 0.18, 95% 0.05 to 0.32) and function (ES, 0.13 95% CI -0.03 to 0.28) for patients with degenerative meniscal tears. No randomised trials comparing non-surgical treatments with surgery in patients younger than 40 years of age or patients with traumatic meniscal tears were identified. Diagnosis of meniscal tears is challenging as all clinical diagnostic tests have high risk of misclassification. Exercise therapy should be recommended as the treatment of choice for middle-aged and older patients with degenerative meniscal lesions. Evidence on the best treatment for young patients and patients with traumatic meniscal tears is lacking.

Effect of mobilization with movement on lateral knee pain due to proximal tibiofibular joint hypomobility

This case report describes a 45-year-old female who presented with lateral knee pain over the right proximal tibiofibular joint (PTFJ) managed unsuccessfully with rest, medications, bracing, injection, and physiotherapy. Clinical diagnosis of PTFJ hypomobility was based on concordant symptom reproduction with palpatory tenderness, accessory motion testing, and restricted anterior glide of the fibula. Intervention consisted of Mulligan's mobilization with movement and taping over the right PTFJ with immediate improvements noticed in pain, range of motion, and function. The patient was seen twice a week and was discharged after four treatment sessions. A follow-up after 6 months revealed that the patient was pain free and fully functional.

What Is the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Duck Walk Test in Detecting Meniscal Tears?

BACKGROUND

Clinical weightbearing provocation tests, like the duck walk test, may be of value in diagnosing or screening for medial meniscal tears. However, evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of the duck walk test is lacking.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the duck walk test in diagnosing medial meniscal tears. (2) To determine whether tear location, tear cause (traumatic versus degenerative), and ACL insufficiency were associated with differences in the sensitivity and specificity of the test.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 136 patients of all ages was retrospectively analyzed by evaluating the outpatient knee clinic appointment list of one orthopaedic surgeon for patients with a broad range of knee injuries who had a prior MRI before (24%) or after (76%) physical examination and had a duck walk test stated in their patient records. Of 230 patients with MRI requested by one orthopaedic surgeon attributable to knee complaints, 136 (59%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 70 (52%) patients were male and 66 (49%) were female, with a mean age of 42 (± SD 14) years. The duck walk test was performed in case of suspected meniscal injury, based on mechanism of injury, general joint line pain, and/or mechanical complaints (ie, locking, giving away). The test is performed by squatting and "waddling" before rising and is positive in case of general joint line pain or painful "clicking". Interobserver repeatability was not evaluated, but the test is well defined and leaves little room for difference in interpretation. Diagnostic accuracy measures were evaluated. Since the convenience sample in this study consisted of patients who had a duck walk test and MRI, and a positive result of the duck walk test almost certainly increased the probability that MRI would be ordered in the majority (76%) of the patients, the test properties calculated here-especially sensitivity-should be considered inflated.

RESULTS

The calculated sensitivity of the duck walk test was 71% (95% CI, 59%-81%) and there was low specificity of 39% (95% CI, 27%-52%). We found no difference in sensitivity between medial (67%; 95% CI, 51%-80%) and lateral (76%; 95% CI, 50%-92%; p = 0.492) meniscal tears. With the numbers available, we compared these patients with patients without a history of trauma and with an intact ACL. We found no difference among patients with traumatic tears (79%; 95% CI, 59%-91%; p = 0.253) and in patients with ACL tears (77%; 95% CI, 46%-94%; p = 0.742).

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the issue of verification bias, the actual sensitivity of this test in practice is likely much lower than the calculated sensitivity we observed. In addition, the test did not seem to perform better in patients with trauma or ACL insufficiency, nor was it more effective in detecting medial than lateral tears, although the numbers on some of those comparisons were rather small. Based on these results, we conclude that used alone, the duck walk test likely has little value in practice as a screening test. However, it is conceivable that it could be used in combination with other provocative tests for screening purposes. Future studies might consider using it as a means to best identify which patients should undergo MRI for the possibility of a meniscal tear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Should exercises be painful in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal disorders are a prevalent and costly global health issue. A new form of exercise therapy focused on loading and resistance programmes that temporarily aggravates a patient's pain has been proposed. The object of this review was to compare the effect of exercises where pain is allowed/encouraged compared with non-painful exercises on pain, function or disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain within randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Two authors independently selected studies and appraised risk of bias. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 9081 potentially eligible studies. Nine papers (from seven trials) with 385 participants met the inclusion criteria. There was short- term significant difference in pain, with moderate quality evidence for a small effect size of -0.27 (-0.54 to -0.05) in favour of painful exercises. For pain in the medium and long term, and function and disability in the short, medium and long term, there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Protocols using painful exercises offer a small but significant benefit over pain-free exercises in the short term, with moderate quality of evidence. In the medium and long term there is no clear superiority of one treatment over another. Pain during therapeutic exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain need not be a barrier to successful outcomes. Further research is warranted to fully evaluate the effectiveness of loading and resistance programmes into pain for chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42016038882.

Evaluation of clinical tests and magnetic resonance imaging for knee meniscal injuries: correlation with video arthroscopy

Objective

To determine the specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, likelihood, and correlation of the findings of meniscal tests and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to knee video arthroscopy.

Methods

A cross-sectional study, conducted between June and December 2015, which evaluated 84 patients with meniscal tears (MT) selected for video arthroscopy. Two orthopedic trainees and a resident performed a physical examination with specific tests. The results and reports from MRI were compared with arthroscopy findings. The data were analyzed in the statistical program R.

Results

The Steinmann I test was the most specific, with specificity of 86% and 91% for medial meniscus tears (MMT) and lateral meniscus tears (LMT), respectively. With regard to accuracy, the pain test on palpation of the joint interline (PPJI) showed values of 67% and 73% for detection of MMT and LMT, respectively. The PPJI test showed higher sensitivity, with a 77% chance of detecting MMT. Analysis of the set of three tests (McMurray, PPJI, and Steinmann I) compared to arthroscopy showed 85% sensitivity for MMT and 70% sensitivity for LMT. MRI showed a greater specificity for the diagnosis of MMT and LMT; the values were 82% and 91%, respectively.

Conclusion

The combination of the three tests shows better results compared to the isolated tests and thus can be associated to the MRI to make an effective diagnosis. However, further studies assisting in the development of a protocol to standardize diagnostic evaluation are required.

Diagnostic Validity of Combining History Elements and Physical Examination Tests for Traumatic and Degenerative Symptomatic Meniscal Tears

BACKGROUND

The current approach to the clinical diagnosis of traumatic and degenerative symptomatic meniscal tears (SMTs) proposes combining history elements and physical examination tests without systematic prescription of imaging investigations, yet the evidence to support this diagnostic approach is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of diagnostic clusters combining history elements and physical examination tests to diagnose or exclude traumatic and degenerative SMT compared with other knee disorders.

DESIGN

Prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTINGS

Patients were recruited from 2 orthopedic clinics, 2 family medicine clinics, and from a university community.

PATIENTS

A total of 279 consecutive patients who underwent consultation for a new knee complaint.

METHODS

Each patient was assessed independently by 2 evaluators. History elements and standardized physical examination tests performed by a physiotherapist were compared with the reference standard: an expert physicians' composite diagnosis including a clinical examination and confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging. Participating expert physicians were orthopedic surgeons (n = 3) or sport medicine physicians (n = 2). Penalized logistic regression (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) was used to identify history elements and physical examination tests associated with the diagnosis of SMT and recursive partitioning was used to develop diagnostic clusters.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+/-) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighty patients had a diagnosis of SMT (28.7%), including 35 traumatic tears and 45 degenerative tears. The combination a history of trauma during a pivot, medial knee pain location, and a positive medial joint line tenderness test was able to diagnose (LR+ = 8.9; 95% CI 6.1-13.1) or exclude (LR- = 0.10; 95% CI 0.03-0.28) a traumatic SMT. Combining a history of progressive onset of pain, medial knee pain location, pain while pivoting, absence of valgus or varus knee misalignment, or full passive knee flexion was able to moderately diagnose (LR+ = 6.4; 95% CI 4.0-10.4) or exclude (LR- = 0.10; 95% CI 0.03-0.31) a degenerative SMT. Internal validation estimates were slightly lower for all clusters but demonstrated positive LR superior to 5 and negative LR inferior to 0.2 indicating moderate shift in posttest probability.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic clusters combining history elements and physical examination tests can support the differential diagnosis of SMT. These results represent the initial derivation of the clusters and external validation is mandatory.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Diagnostic validity of physical examination tests for common knee disorders: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

More evidence on diagnostic validity of physical examination tests for knee disorders is needed to lower frequently used and costly imaging tests.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) evaluating the diagnostic validity of physical examination tests for knee disorders.

METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted in five databases until January 2016. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR.

RESULTS

Seventeen reviews were included with mean AMSTAR score of 5.5 ± 2.3. Based on six SR, only the Lachman test for ACL injuries is diagnostically valid when individually performed (Likelihood ratio (LR+):10.2, LR-:0.2). Based on two SR, the Ottawa Knee Rule is a valid screening tool for knee fractures (LR-:0.05). Based on one SR, the EULAR criteria had a post-test probability of 99% for the diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Based on two SR, a complete physical examination performed by a trained health provider was found to be diagnostically valid for ACL, PCL and meniscal injuries as well as for cartilage lesions.

CONCLUSION

When individually performed, common physical tests are rarely able to rule in or rule out a specific knee disorder, except the Lachman for ACL injuries. There is low-quality evidence concerning the validity of combining history elements and physical tests.

Patellofemoral pain: Challenging current practice - A case report

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is a common problem in young people, with 1 in 6 suffering at any one time. It is unclear which management approach is the optimal method for treating PFP in the long term, with traditional physiotherapy examination focusing on assessing for specific structural dysfunction. A rationale for a different assessment and treatment approach, one that moves the focus away from a biomedical/tissue pathology model towards one directed at the neurophysiology of pain, has been suggested. The patient was a 21 year old male with a 6 year history of PFP with previous failed physiotherapeutic treatment. He reported previous multiple healthcare practitioners' advice to avoid activities that were painful as reasons for being unable to participate in sporting activities. No specific structural testing was performed, such as specific muscle strength, length, foot position, patella movement and position, or movement patterns. Descriptions of tissue based pathology models of pain, e.g. patella mal-tracking, were actively discouraged and challenged. The patient was taught to perform one uncomfortable/painful exercise as part of his rehabilitation programme twice a day. The patient achieved 80% improvement in his symptoms over 7 appointments and a return to physical activity following a 5 month rehabilitation programme purposively designed to elicit pain by means of gradually exercising and loading the tissues. This case report highlights the need for further research into exercise protocols for patients suffering with PFP based upon neurophysiology models of pain.